Jump to content

Good value gaming


Hylian
 Share

Recommended Posts

Apex. I haven't spent a penny on that shit and have played it for like 500 hours. I feel bad, but the things that EA think are worthy of my money -- skins and costumes but not the game itself -- I don't want.  I would have gladly paid full price if hadn't been free-to-play.  Dota is another one. Played it for around 1000 hours. I think I bought a battle pass once, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The industry was far smaller back then though. As the industry grows market forces allow them to reduce prices.  Instead of expensive memory chips and cartridges you now get an optical disk in a plastic box. Hell, you don't even get an instruction book. You're lucky to get a leaflet.  Or you get digital downloads where there's virtually no distribution costs, nothing to manufacture or ship, no Centresoft and Gamstation taking their cut.  Oh yes, and in app purchases to skim even more money out of you.  It's insane that games cost £70 and it won't last.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk of inflation ignores the fact that the cost of living nowadays is much higher than when you could buy a car with the change down the back of your couch.

 

It's perfectly fair to to decide that games jumping from 50 to 70 quid makes them too expensive, suggesting otherwise just sounds like blaming avocados for the housing crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Keiths_Dad said:

All this talk of inflation ignores the fact that the cost of living nowadays is much higher than when you could buy a car with the change down the back of your couch.

 

It's perfectly fair to to decide that games jumping from 50 to 70 quid makes them too expensive, suggesting otherwise just sounds like blaming avocados for the housing crisis.

Yes the cost of living has risen but so have wages. That’s inflation.

Certain things have got cheaper in real terms (games) and certain things have got more expensive in real terms (housing).

 

What is and isn’t too expensive will vary massively from person to person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rex Grossman said:

For reference, according to the Bank of England, £70 now is the equivalent of £36 in 1996 or £33 in 1992.

 

Would you have spent £36 on a new PlayStation game in ‘96 or £33 on a new SNES game in ‘92?

When I was working in 1996 I was paid £3/hour. So 11 hours work - I wouldn’t have been paying tax.

 

£70 now is clearly a lot fewer hours work than that, but I can get a hell of a lot more for £70 now than I could then:

- a year and a bits subscription to Apple Arcade

- the best part of seven months of game pass; and a lot of games on it - many of which will be at least as high quality as returnal

- at least two games outright at sale prices etc.

 

scale is an interesting thing when everything is distributed digitally. The straight comparison doesn’t really work.


(if I had a PS5, then I’d probably buy Horizon Forbidden West at £70 for the tourism aspect. Returnal would need really good reviews, but that’s perhaps more to do with how I bounce off bullet hell shooters in 2D or 3D)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, footle said:

When I was working in 1996 I was paid £3/hour. So 11 hours work - I wouldn’t have been paying tax.

 

£70 now is clearly a lot fewer hours work than that, but I can get a hell of a lot more for £70 now than I could then:

- a year and a bits subscription to Apple Arcade

- the best part of seven months of game pass; and a lot of games on it - many of which will be at least as high quality as returnal

- at least two games outright at sale prices etc.

 

scale is an interesting thing when everything is distributed digitally. The straight comparison doesn’t really work.


(if I had a PS5, then I’d probably buy Horizon Forbidden West at £70 for the tourism aspect. Returnal would need really good reviews, but that’s perhaps more to do with how I bounce off bullet hell shooters in 2D or 3D)

 


What you were earning in 1996 isn’t relevant unless you compare it to what you’d be earning in 2021 if you were that young.

Like I say games are cheaper in real terms now. Much cheaper. Anyone who bought console games in the 90s paid the equivalent of £70 (often more) if they were buying new.

 

Can/will the market support games at £70 now? Dunno, we’ll see. I don’t think £70 represents bad value if you get enough out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rex Grossman said:

Yes the cost of living has risen but so have wages. That’s inflation.

Certain things have got cheaper in real terms (games) and certain things have got more expensive in real terms (housing).

 

What is and isn’t too expensive will vary massively from person to person. 

OK, to make my point more accurately, the cost of living has risen more than wages have. In fact, the one time I've actually had a wage increase without changing jobs, the 2% raise my employers were making a big song and dance about was way below the rate of inflation at that time - it was a real terms pay decrease.

 

I have much less disposable income now than I would have done in the same circumstances 20 years ago, in real terms, so it isn't as simple as saying games back then cost £100 in today's money. And the way the major publishers nickle and dime us with DLC and loot boxes these days, together with the much larger audience they have these days than back then, there's no real justification for this latest RRP spike.

 

I'll still buy them, but they don't offer anything like the same value as they used to, so I'll probably be buying a lot less of them than I used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s competing with Netflix from a value and time sync pov. Circa £15 pm for the family’s entertainment versus £70 for one person. The price of games historically is kind of irrelevant here I think.

 

£70 is ridiculous at the best of times and especially so now considering state of the world.


£50 is where it’s at I think , for a boxed aaa game. £40-45 to download imo - not the other way around.

 

there should maybe be a £30-35 price point also for games with lower production values (not necessarily Indy type games).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can just say "I don't want to spend £70 on a new game" that's perfectly fine. We don't need all these inaccurate comparisons to films etc. £70 seems like a lot! It is a lot! Especially, I think, for a game that you don't know at this point if it's amazing. And for a game that you run the risk of it being a one and done title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, deerokus said:

I never have and never will pay £70 for a game. 


Have you paid £60?

 

 

8 hours ago, Keiths_Dad said:

It's perfectly fair to to decide that games jumping from 50 to 70 quid makes them too expensive, suggesting otherwise just sounds like blaming avocados for the housing crisis.

 

Did you skip a generation? New PS4 games are £60.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I want to play something and I'm feeling impatient there's really very little price that would put me off from doing so. 

 

Of course, what will most likely happen in my case is that I'll pay full whack for the game, but only begin to play it when it drops down to half-price. 

 

I'm cool with that, it's the cross I have to bear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Rex Grossman said:

If you ever bought a full price game in the 90s then you have in effect spent £70 on a game.

 

Sony just Punked you. Lylat Wars was £70 and overly eager kids traded in their entire Snes collection to EB, much to the chargrin of angry moms. EB had to add an age limit of 16.

 

Anyone here seen Wolf of Wallstreet? *sigh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if I'm an outlier but these value conversations always seem to boil down to hours/price=value and there is never or rarely any talk of the quality of experience on offer

 

It's no wonder we see games now designed as grindfests or services where the purpose is to fill time if that is how players at large see games. What about value from offering a quality experience unlike anything else that is shorter but sweet, can gaming value only be seen in terms of hours ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rex Grossman said:


What you were earning in 1996 isn’t relevant unless you compare it to what you’d be earning in 2021 if you were that young.

Like I say games are cheaper in real terms now. Much cheaper. Anyone who bought console games in the 90s paid the equivalent of £70 (often more) if they were buying new.

 

Can/will the market support games at £70 now? Dunno, we’ll see. I don’t think £70 represents bad value if you get enough out of it.


you didn’t bother to read the rest of my post?

I have many more gaming options now for that £70 that will return more value, than I ever had for that £30 in 1994.

 

So if I was earning £8/hour now, my answer would remain much the same.

(Except I’d be playing fortnite, and spending money on the season pass: I’d certainly not be the target audience for a bespoke £70 roguelike)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, footle said:


you didn’t bother to read the rest of my post?

I have many more gaming options now for that £70 that will return more value, than I ever had for that £30 in 1994.

 

So if I was earning £8/hour now, my answer would remain much the same.

(Except I’d be playing fortnite, and spending money on the season pass: I’d certainly not be the target audience for a bespoke £70 roguelike)


I’m just making the point that what you earned in 1996 is irrelevant to whether you can or will pay £70 now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had my PS5 since launch and haven't purchased a single full price game for it yet. I've played PS5 games for free from Plus (Astro, Control UE) i've got years and years worth of Plus games and about 30 physical PS4 discs, many that have had free upgrades or just run better on PS5 than ever before. There's so much content out there the £70 is only an issue if it's a real must have, day 1 game. With retailer promotions, cashback etc no one ever really pays full price, only people who bought digital only consoles have to cough it up but i'd argue if you bought a console that only lets you buy digital games from a single retailer then you aren't the most price conscious gamer to begin with. 

 

It's all relative though, any game is worth what you will pay. I thought Resident Evil 2 was worth full price and 3 was not. It had a shorter story mode with lots of cuts from the original, gameplay features were removed from 2 and there were no fun bonus modes or different scenarios. So i sold it on while 2 still sits proudly on the shelf.

 

I spent over £200 on various editions of Shenmue 3 because I am a huge fan of that series and supported it with my wallet.  Some people would look at me like i'm crazy then realize they spent the equivalent of £500 on virtual football players. It's all worth what you decide it is. 

 

Like Dark Souls remake can be bought for around £30-35 easily on ebay now and that's my biting point because I like Souls games but aren't crazy about them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember paying £65 for sf2turbo on SNES and £50 for starwing quite happily as a early teenager (working on the milk paid well - do people remember milk men?). I shudder to think what that is equivalent to nowadays. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ninja Doctor said:

I remember paying £65 for sf2turbo on SNES and £50 for starwing quite happily as a early teenager (working on the milk paid well - do people remember milk men?). I shudder to think what that is equivalent to nowadays. 


My local import shop had a Japanese Starfox before it had even been reviewed in UK mags for £90.

 

I had just bought the brand new Japanese Super Star Wars for £40, sold it for £70 a day later and used that profit to mentally justify putting down the £90 for Starfox. I was probably the first person in Wales to own it and ‘only’ really cost me £60 but I did hand over £90 in Feb 1993. Wild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hylian said:

As debated in the Returnal thread, Sony are pushing an eye-watering £70 RRP for this PS5 exclusive. This is a big step up, and a gamble given Housemarque are hardly an established AAA studio. £70 is crazy! It's way too much for a game! 

 

Or is it? If Returnal offers the "extreme replayability" the devs are suggesting, then £70 will probably offer good value for many people. 

 

So the general question is, what represents good value gaming for you? Is this new RRP a rip off, or have we had it too good for too long? 

 

And what's the best/worst value gaming you've ever had?

If you factor in inflation games are fairly cheap these days in terms of the content you get. I remember them costing what £45-50 back in the 90's for a MegaDrive/SNES game (and more at times). Even PC games came in at £45. Sure the market has grown a bit since then but so has the production costs.

 

A game I guess is worth what you are willing to pay for it.

 

Personally for a single game my sweet spot is around £40. If I get 10 hours entertainment out of it I'll be satisfied. Happy to wait for sales too. However these days I find I'm just using GamePass and play whats on there. Always something that I find interesting so this generation I really can't see myself buying any big AAA games. Had plenty of 10 hour experiences on there that have been great.

 

The way I play games has changed and I'm less likely to buy a AAA game title because I've pretty much never finished any I have bought as they are too long or the subject matter is not of interest to me. However in terms of play value they offer they are incredible value if you have the time to play them!

 

So to summarise AAA game prices are fine. However they don't really effect me because I prefer using a service these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, deerokus said:

I never have and never will pay £70 for a game. 

I paid £80 for the "ultimate" edition of Mortal Kombat 11 on launch. I had proper FOMO going on and wanted to play it on launch. I had £30 worth of Xbox credit from Rewards, which made it more palatable. But it was still £80, however I paid for it. 

 

For a good while, I thought that was good value. Played the game a lot and it had a decent chunk of content. Then they started releasing content - characters and a new story mode - that isn't included in the £80 "ultimate" bundle. And I now feel a little bit ripped off. 

 

I'm not convinced that I'll be paying that much for a game again anytime soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ScouserInExile said:

I paid £80 for the "ultimate" edition of Mortal Kombat 11 on launch. I had proper FOMO going on and wanted to play it on launch. I had £30 worth of Xbox credit from Rewards, which made it more palatable. But it was still £80, however I paid for it. 

 

For a good while, I thought that was good value. Played the game a lot and it had a decent chunk of content. Then they started releasing content - characters and a new story mode - that isn't included in the £80 "ultimate" bundle. And I now feel a little bit ripped off. 

 

I'm not convinced that I'll be paying that much for a game again anytime soon. 

That's a key point some people miss, it's rare that 60, 70, 80 quid includes the whole game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, deerokus said:

I never have and never will pay £70 for a game. 


I’m pretty sure I broke that threshold with each plastic guitar or turntable I got :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gotters said:

I don't know if I'm an outlier but these value conversations always seem to boil down to hours/price=value and there is never or rarely any talk of the quality of experience on offer

 

Granted some people have addictive personalities, but if I'm putting hundreds of hours into an experience then the quality is a given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know they’re not popular here but sports games always represent good value for me. I buy a football game every year, often for around £30, and play that all year. I usually end up getting both and even FIFA has been played enough to have warranted a full price purchase if I’d had to. 
 

I’ve preordered MLB the show with some credit I had. £60 but, if I get into it just a little bit, it’ll be worth it as I’ll get lots of play on my own and with friends. I know nothing about baseball at the moment. 
 

My best ‘next gen’ purchase has been 2K21 golf for £25. I quick resume rounds on that all the time and really enjoy it. I’m on my way to becoming super golf champ or whatever it’s called. 
 

Sports games just really suit my gaming appetite. 30 mins of action, where skill is the measure of the game but it’s often not too demanding. I like a 100 hour JRPG occasionally, but short bursts like sport and shmups are more my tempo. I’ll get lots of use out of them and rarely feel I haven’t got more than my money’s worth. Stuff like CoD though is the opposite because I don’t really play online so after the campaign that’s it. Obviously not aimed at me and a bad example, but those repetitive campaign shooters - Gears 5 etc - are probably the worst value, for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.